[RandyMyers]

I actually am very into baseball history but was not able to wrap my head around first base at that point (when making that post). Yes I recall Olerud, Hernandez and Parker being consider some of the best.

You can not discount the entire golden glove process and awards because one year one player was cookie cuttered in. For the most part the winning players deserved the win, especially when you see a player get voted in the first time several seasons into their career.

And yes, with one glaring exception, I trust coaches and managers opinions a whole lot more than the average stat guy. Again, remember my background. I am a software engineer with a heavy math background. I am also a pure logic thinker (nickname in some corners is Spok). But I also realize that there are some areas where pure stats can not be fully descriptive. Baseball players abilities are one.

Again I emphasis that going purely by statistics a players abilities, for more cases that would be statistically accurate, vary far too much year by year. A players abilities may improve with work and experience or decline with age, but in general would not vary significantly from one year to the next. Pure stats show it the opposite, which disproves the validity being used wholly on their own. Remember again what I have stated. Stats certainly have a role when taken in conjunction with many other factors.

For any game to "get it right" all these factors must be inclusive, however this requires significant effort. This sums my opinion. I hope that it makes sense.

BTW- Palmeiro had nagging injuries that season. The remainder of his career he played first base most of the time. For several years after that the award varied; Olerud won a couple as did others. I believe that was a significant wake up call. So the awards are a heck of a lot more valid in the 2000's...